Facts

The Appellant had filed a suit seeking partition and recovery of her 1/4th right      in the suit properties, which was allegedly purchased by her late father in the  name of her brothers, the Respondents. It was her case that the properties was joint family property whereas her brothers claimed the properties in question were owned exclusively by them. The Trial Court held that the immovableproperties were self-acquired by the brothers and that she had no right in them,  but was entitled to 1/4th share in the movable property. Being aggrieved by the  said order, she approached the High Court. The High Court held that the suit property was not self-acquired as the transaction related to the suit property was benami in nature. The said order of the high court was challenged in the Supreme Court by her brothers which remanded the matter back to the High Court for reconsideration. Thereupon, the High Court upheld the verdict of the Trial Court, holding that the suit property was self acquired and that the transaction was not benami in nature. Hence the appeal byher before the Supreme Court.

Issue

Whether financial assistance rendered by the father for purchase of suit property  by the brothers made the transaction benami innature or not.

View

In determining whether the transaction was benami, the intention of the person who contributed the purchase money was determinative. The intention could be ascertained on the basis of the surrounding circumstances: relationship of the parties, motives governing their action in bringing about the transaction, their subsequent conduct etc. The source of money is not the sole consideration, but merelyone of them. The burden of proving that a particular transaction was benami or not always rests on the person asserting it to be so. The Court relied      on Thakur Bhim Singh v. Thakur Kan Singh (1980) 3 SCC 72 and Binapani Paul

v. Pratima Ghosh (2007) 6 SCC 100.

| Allied Laws – 23. Benami Transactions (Prohibition of Right to Recover Property) Ordinance, 1988 |

Held

The judgement of the High Court confirming the decision of the trial court was upheld as the source of the money is not the only relevant circumstance in determining the nature of the transaction. As the father had otherwise financially helped his daughter (theAppellant), the Court concluded that the financial assistance given to her brothers (the Respondents) was to aid in their welfare and not to effectuate benami transactions. (CA No. of 2008 dt. 9-4-2019)

Editorial: Ratio is relevant in determining circumstances in which the financial assistance given by family members may amount to a benami transaction. It confirms that not all cases of transactions aided by the money received form others can be held to be benami which decision rests on several factors and the onus of proving the same to be so rests with the the person alleging the same to    be so.

“Man becomes great exactly in the degree in which he works for the welfare of hisfellow-men.”

– Mahatma Gandhi